Astak's 5" Pocket Pro $199

[K-Thom]

I don't think there's a significant problem with information about products from smaller companies...it's the relatively shameless abuse of the website by representatives from those companies for advertising.

I'm absolutely with you on this one. Information and updates are okay and more than welcome. Shameless plugs - especially in multiple threads - simply aren't acceptable.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

Main difference is that the technology used in these ebook readers is not new and not expensive. Technologically speaking, they're inferior to most PDAs and cell phones. It's not the build cost that is driving market prices with these devices. Unfortunately, technology is rarely what determines the value of a product when it comes to marketing that product.

Perhaps not for much of the electronics but I believe it is for the e-ink display, which, IMO, is the cost driver for these devices. I may be wrong ang the developers of the E-ink displays may be gouging the market but I personally do not believe that to be true.

A lot of research went into those diplays and they deserve to recoup their expenditures. Just one man's opinion.

[derrell]

Originally Posted by slayda

Perhaps not for much of the electronics but I believe it is for the e-ink display, which, IMO, is the cost driver for these devices. I may be wrong ang the developers of the E-ink displays may be gouging the market but I personally do not believe that to be true.

A lot of research went into those diplays and they deserve to recoup their expenditures. Just one man's opinion.

Waiting for the anti-capitalist crowd to descend with their pitchforks.

I haven't hunted down the numbers but I agree with you that they definitely deserve to get back what they put into the research and some nice profits besides.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by slayda

Perhaps not for much of the electronics but I believe it is for the e-ink display, which, IMO, is the cost driver for these devices. I may be wrong ang the developers of the E-ink displays may be gouging the market but I personally do not believe that to be true.

A lot of research went into those diplays and they deserve to recoup their expenditures. Just one man's opinion.

Where is the line between recouping expenditures and shameless exploitation? There lies one of my preferences between eInk and reflective monochrome LCD.

LCD technology is mature, fast, only a little more power hungry than eInk, and arguably easier to read. eInk is revolutionary, proprietary, slow, and very battery friendly. On that only a little less than level playing field, I'll opt for cheap every time!

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by wodin

Where is the line between recouping expenditures and shameless exploitation? There lies one of my preferences between eInk and reflective monochrome LCD.

LCD technology is mature, fast, only a little more power hungry than eInk, and arguably easier to read. eInk is revolutionary, proprietary, slow, and very battery friendly. On that only a little less than level playing field, I'll opt for cheap every time!

Seconded. E-ink is frankly a pretty mediocre technology on the whole, as is reflective LCD at this time. I'm not anti-capitalist, but I'm certainly not going to be an e-ink apologist like many on these fora are. The technology is not that new and it is not that amazing or revolutionary. Its prices are a matter of marketing and exclusive fabrication, which is to be expected. It's not justified because of the research--that's mostly irrelevant when it comes down to pricing schemes anyway. It will be interesting when the exclusivity wears off. Only way I can see that happening is if companies stop producing lame clones of each other and start actually developing independently using varied technologies. Pixel Qi, Plastic Logic, and TMD among other companies will hopefully be able to provide some of that variety, though unfortunately e-ink is going to have a good headstart with its brand identity.

[Sweetpea]

Ah, but I think e-ink put LCD creaters to a new path: make a screen that can be backlit, easily readable outside, doesn't take too much power and is easy on the eyes. Do you think screens like the one PixelQ is working on, would be under development if there hadn't been something like e-ink screens?

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Ah, but I think e-ink put LCD creaters to a new path: make a screen that can be backlit, easily readable outside, doesn't take too much power and is easy on the eyes. Do you think screens like the one PixelQ is working on, would be under development if there hadn't been something like e-ink screens?

Yes. Perhaps not as quickly, but definitely. There's been demand for sun-viewable LCDs for a long time.

[HarryT]

"Transflective" LCDs are viewable in sunlight. My iPaq Pocket PC has such a screen and it's excellent in sunlight.

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"Transflective" LCDs are viewable in sunlight. My iPaq Pocket PC has such a screen and it's excellent in sunlight.

There is an amusing video that compares Pixel Qi with a transflective LCD notebook on YouTube. I'm not a diehard fan of Pixel Qi at all but it manages to make the transflective Toshiba screen look like a joke (which it is, sadly).

Again, the demand for developing the technology has been around a long time. E-Ink's commercial success may be accelerating the dev of other parallel technologies, but it didn't start them.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

There is an amusing video that compares Pixel Qi with a transflective LCD notebook on YouTube. I'm not a diehard fan of Pixel Qi at all but it manages to make the transflective Toshiba screen look like a joke (which it is, sadly).

yes, I've seen that video. But I get the impression my screen is much better in sunlight than that Toshiba... That looks much more like the monitor on my Dell laptop. I agree with Harry, my PDA screen works perfectly in direct sunlight. I should wait till the sun comes out (they said it would...) and try to make a picture of the difference between the various LCD screens we have at home...

[basschick]

something no one has mentioned in this thread is that there are more than just hardware costs involved with each ebook reader - there's the cost to smaller companies for licensing from adobe and perhaps other companies. adobe is one of the more expensive companies to license consumer programs from, and i expect that their licenses are pretty steep.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

Main difference is that the technology used in these ebook readers is not new and not expensive.

Except for the eInk screen.

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Except for the eInk screen.

No, including the e-ink screen.

basschick has a good point; most likely the most expensive part of these readers is the licensing.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

No, including the e-ink screen.

basschick has a good point; most likely the most expensive part of these readers is the licensing.

Licensing and firmware development. If you have good hardware, you want good firmware too. Otherwise people won't buy it, because they think "it" is bad. While only half of it may be bad (the firmware). And software development is often a rather big part of a budget.

[Musicman]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Licensing and firmware development. If you have good hardware, you want good firmware too. Otherwise people won't buy it, because they think "it" is bad. While only half of it may be bad (the firmware). And software development is often a rather big part of a budget.

I agree with you on the licensing and firmware. What I don't understand is why a third party has not come out with an operating system/Firmware that allows the user to install the existing reader software that is given away so you could access any DRM disabled book.